Recently there has been a rise in anti-globalization right wing populism, and there has also always been a tendency in the labour movement which calls for economic protectionism and an end to outsourcing.
My question is can Capitalism survive this? It seems globalization really kicked into high gear during the 70s and 80s as a necessary countermeasure to declines in the rate of profit. Would a rise of protectionism send us spinning into economic crisis and should we thus encourage it?
Yes but it won't because porky will either: destroy what's left of bourgeois democracy in order to avoid "deglobalizing" everything OR they will simply increase profits by exploiting first world workers again.
Protectionism might be better for some workers but ultimately it would just lead to a different set of porkies, the thing that will topple capitalism is the involuntary collapse of global economics in the resource crisis.
It can, it just won't be your usual neoliberalism on steroids.
A better question would be how many countries have to do this in order for this to not become a working class tragedy.
Also I should add that either way we should encourage it as it forces Porky to make life harder for first worlders.
Yes, but once these 'anti-globalists' actually get into power what do they do? Continue the exact same neoliberal policies.
It's a politician's job to manage the common affairs of the capitalist class, not their constituents. Every bourgeois politician is faced with a choice: Pursue their right-wing anti-globalisation rhetoric or stay in power. If you think this rhetoric will amount to anything more than that you're as delusional as Holla Forums.
This, there won't be a new rise in protectionism, keynesianism, social democracy etc.
neoliberalism will go on, and revolution awaits
This is also why right wing politicians are preferable, since they defang right wing populism and force fake left wing neoliberals to take the side of the right, thus allowing the true left to campaign against all sides.
There's also the danger or further symbolic opposition to the right by 'leftists' (neoliberals)
That's retarded.
You're retarded.
Right-wing populism is nothing but controlled opposition. You can see that plainly in Trump who has been able to do absolutely nothing to create a protectionist economy. Neither politicians nor their voter bases have any real authority to accomplish anything. The popularity of populism is utterly irrelevent
Protectionist nationalist welfare-statism is still capitalism.
kek
I'm aware of that, I'm asking whether the re-introduction of protectionist would lead to a deeper Capitalist crisis. The Great Depression was significantly exacerbated by protectionist measures. Also I didn't mention Welfare at all
...
kek
The workers do not have anything left to tax. They don't even have a future, since they can never hope to do more than to die in debt. It turns out that Margaret Thatcher was right, only about the wrong system: the problem with capitalism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.
woo hoo, until workers don't live in shacks and eat once a day, there is plenty to tax. Debt slavery is just speeding up the process. Don't underestimate porky
You are are very dense. Protectionism → Decline in rate of profit → Deepening of Capitalist crisis → Opportunity to destroy Capitalism.
The last time we got an "opportunity to destroy capitalism" thanks to "protectionism" we got the March on Rome.
It does not matter where they live, because they don't own where they live. Where they live is owned by porky. Porky can't tax that without just taxing himself.
remember, you can't get rich if you don't sell something to someone. that's why fordism was created.
When I was smaller, my dad worked in a fruit and vegetables warehouse. Once they got a visit from some Ukrainian who wanted to buy some fruit. They thought that they will go for lower quality, cheaper ones, but opposite was true. They had no problem with paying more for higher quality.
Moral of this story is that you cannot make money by trying to sell stuff to people without money. Bourgeois can sell stuff to their own class, if well paid workers under capitalism ment higher profits for them, china would look much different today. Ford was nazi (probably Asserist), in a time when rate of profit was high, he could afford it to satisfy his ideology.
Nigger that's not going to work, bigger radicals than cheeto man and le benis tried to reverse the flow of the capital, but they have all failed, no matter if it took four or forty years.
If the left wants to stop sucking ass, it must first accept the inevitable victory of globalisation with all its effects and then build a praxis around that, so far I see nothing being developed in that department.
Of course. The point is that there's a whole bunch of working class and way less bourgeois. If you were obsessed with making money which demographic would you target?
That's actually one of the reasons the stock market is so prevalent today. Bourgs know it's not as easy to sell to the general populace, what with them having to literally take loans to buy shit, so they cut the middleman and now they make fictitious money without producing anything.
And nobody hangs them.
The group that has money to buy things. This is precisely why we are seeing so-called first world falling apart. The consumer base can no longer consume.
Read the cybernetics thread ( ), our praxis is to develop tools that will allow these global productive flows to be managed under proletarian control. It's still in it's infancy as a tendency though, if you agree that the Left has been navel gazing and fixated on the failures of the past for too long you might enjoy our new shit.
It's still in its* infancy
How embarrassing.
Pray tell, can you even explain what a share of a company is a representation of without looking it up on the Internet, and how shares are evaluated?
kys this isn't reddit
Literally what I said.
It's a representation of how much money you gave the company or whatever third party sold it to you in order for you to have a share of the company and a say in what the company has to do. But sure, all money is fictitious anyways, point taken.
All the anti-globalist shit is just dog whistling and rhetoric. Globalists still control the White House.
user, I've been in that thread since the beginning, no need to redirect me there and besides, that was not exactly what I was thinking about. Assume we have developed those tools, where and how do we apply them from the practical perspective?
How the hell can globalism be destroyed when the internet exists? Tools for communication and ultimately trade across long distances are globalistic, tools such as the one we are using right now are what caused globalization.
anti - globalism is the sentiment that two wrongs don't make a right. That people from developing nations don't have a right to settle to whatever country they want to. It's a sentiment that foreign aid isn't a right, that countries don't have a right to that aid. Basically it's the idea that a Nation's sovereignty supersedes the interests of foreign actors. It's the concept of the Non Aggression principle, and assumes that each country is it's individual sovereign actor, and it can do what it wants in it's country.
That's an excellent question, and not one that we have a firm answer about yet.Opinions vary widely: some anons think we can use these tools to create an alternate economic framework for co-ops to operate under, some anons want to see in-kind economic planning tools taken up by finance capital, which would encourage them to bring the businesses they finance into an in-kind planning network that could be easily adapted to socialist production in the course of struggle, some anons want to provide the means for economically depressed but potentially productive regions like Detroit to organise the production of their livelihood along communist lines, etc.
They're all in development and subject to debate, but I would say they're potentially more effective praxis than 'vote for the fascist' or 'yell in the street and get ignored' or 'fight muh gorilla war in the jungle' or 'try to sezie power without any idea about how to run a non-capitalist economy'.